Did you Support War in Iraq??

[surada]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
Imperialist Russia)

Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbors. You obviously don't know anything about Baathism. We invaded Iraq to make Bibi Netanyahu happy.

Surada was brought up on DA JOOOOS DONE IT. Actually Saddam did invade
Kuwait. HOWEVER that move was justified in muzzie land by claiming that the
Kuwaitis are so RICH----but do not share with the rest of muzzie land. Sorry
SURY HABIBI-----even back then I worked with lots of muslims so I had access
to the latest Khutbah jumaat feces flings. (of the sunni variety) IMO just taking Saddam out----- in the mode of KHADAFFY could have been enough. Then the left-over sunnis and
shiites could have battled it out themselves

Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil ten years earlier.. Papa Bush was too smart to invade Iraq.

 

[irosie91]

notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there. Shiites mostly
in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills. Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in
the NORTHERN part of Iraq ----recognized by the 1980s

I know it. Do you have a point? Do you have a question for me? Are you going to ever respond to my question?

the question "do you think we should have invaded Iraq"? Here's my answer.
In retrospect I believe that just knocking Saddam out would have been a MUCH
better idea. BUT BACK then I understood that such a move would have created
a blood bath between sunnis and shiites and---also killed lots of KURDS.
I was a softie back then and absolutely did not want that to happen

 

[irosie91]

saddam was a HUGE THREAT -------baathist (to wit arab nazi ---supported by
Imperialist Russia)

Saddam was not a threat to any of his neighbors. You obviously don't know anything about Baathism. We invaded Iraq to make Bibi Netanyahu happy.

Surada was brought up on DA JOOOOS DONE IT. Actually Saddam did invade
Kuwait. HOWEVER that move was justified in muzzie land by claiming that the
Kuwaitis are so RICH----but do not share with the rest of muzzie land. Sorry
SURY HABIBI-----even back then I worked with lots of muslims so I had access
to the latest Khutbah jumaat feces flings. (of the sunni variety) IMO just taking Saddam out----- in the mode of KHADAFFY could have been enough. Then the left-over sunnis and
shiites could have battled it out themselves

Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil ten years earlier.. Papa Bush was too smart to invade Iraq.

For those who do not know-----Saddam justified his invasion of Kuwait by claiming
that Kuwait----which sits on an OCEAN OF OIL was -----SLANT DRILLING
IRAQ"S oil ---------yeah right. And Iran claimed that Israel steals Iranian rain
clouds. My all time fave is the arab baathist claim that Israel TRAINS SNAKES to
PREFERENTIALLY bite arabs. ----for the record the snake barely has a brain---more
like a pair of ganglia up front. I am so delighted with Surada----he knows the islamo-
nazi propaganda BY ROTE

 

[struth]

why would it have?

Exactly There point. The same goes for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.

They don’t list every fucking possibility known to mankind to be excluded when writing legislation in Congress. They list only what they were authorizing.

Think about it you First Class Trump Supporter.

Well it depends what sort of law it is, like is it a law authoriing something? Like Xiden's Use of Force against Iraq law?

The Iraq Liberation Act wasn't authorizing anything...it was stating US policy...which was to overthrow Saddam, and help nation build in the state when done.

Let's not forget the warning by Bill Clinton when making it US policy to overthrow Saddam:
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...

— President Clinton ~ 1998

 

[struth]

it supported over throwing saddam

Not with an American Blitzkrieg.

Clinton was already bombing iraq

Clinton Never dreamed of launching a ground invasion. never. Bush should have stopped that policy after 1441 was passed. Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully? Therefore 4484 Americans would not be dead, half a million Iraqis would not be dead, and Americans couid have spent the $5 trillion they spent on Iraq on America.

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

clinton supported overthrowing saddam and was using military while president

had clinton been more aggressive and with Bush instead of Obama and Xiden folllowibg him we likely wouldn’t of seen the rise of terrorism

Clinton was much smarter than Dubya. There was absolutely NO reason to take Saddam out.. EXCEPT Clean Break Strategy demanded it.

Um...Clinton was the one that made it US Policy in 1998 to take Saddam out....on signing the Iraq Liberation Act....and right before he started bombing Saddam...

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. ...

Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits. ...

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. ...

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. ...

— President Clinton ~ 1998

 

[struth]

it never said ground troops couldn’t be used

The declaration of independence never said the United States could not use ground troops and invade Iraq just the same. You are a fool.

The reason that the Document being discussed never said a word about using American ground forces to liberate Iraq was because nobody in their right mind would ever have suggested such a thing. If they did they would have been laughed out of the room. And that includes dick Cheney who knew better at the time than to put American troops on the ground in Iraq combat situation.

why would it have? it was dealing with our independence from UK, not our policies of overthrowing saddam

no the reason it didn’t was because we wanted to leave all options open.

Britain began selling the war on Iraq in 1997-1998. .. Sir Derek Plumbly was in charge.

Cool...Bill Clinton and Xiden started selling it here about then too

 

[Correll]

and yes wmds were found

Thats a better warmonger myth to believe Than the myth that Correll believes. He believes nation building was justification for the invasion. The WMD didn’t matter.

Correll​

• May 14, 2021
• #766
• Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
  

That you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.

 

[Correll]

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

Biden said this;

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier? And that is a tough question.”​

What aspect of that comment do you think Is a lie?

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

 

[Correll]

1. I do not "know" that the UN Security Council is credible.

If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible. You shouid have not opposed or not supported the prospect of starting a war abd killibg civilians because you could not find a credible soul in the world to allow you to know wtf was going in Iraq at that time.

THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible.


That you pretend that it does mean that, is you being dishonest again.


Other people might not be credible.

You have anti-credibility. If you say something, your words have the REVERSE weight as to what you intended.

 

[struth]

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

Biden said this;

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier? And that is a tough question.”​

What aspect of that comment do you think Is a lie?

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

he’s Baghdad Bob it’s what he does

 

[NotfooledbyW]

THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible.

Of course you found Bush credible. He was the leader of your tribe at the time.

What is incredible is your inability to read. I didn’t say you found Bush not to be credible when he flat out lied to you.

Here is what I wrote;

“If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.”

If you actually believed that you, with your limited tribal brain, could not find the UNSC inspectors to be credible, then you need to realize that you should never have supported the war based on what Bush was telling you. There were too many facts available for six out of ten Americans to realize, if not instinctively, that the wisest move before starting a war wouid be let the inspectors finish checking out the WMD situation in IRAQ and only go in with UN backing. Just like Biden said needed to be done.

 

[surada]

notfooled -----you might feel a bit better by knowing that SADDAM, himself
was murdering tens of thousands----BEFORE the USA got there. Shiites mostly
in Southern Iraq and Kurds in the hills. Saddam was into chemical warfare too---
leading to a plethora of birth defects in Iraqi kids----if I remember correctly--in
the NORTHERN part of Iraq ----recognized by the 1980s

I know it. Do you have a point? Do you have a question for me? Are you going to ever respond to my question?

the question "do you think we should have invaded Iraq"? Here's my answer.
In retrospect I believe that just knocking Saddam out would have been a MUCH
better idea. BUT BACK then I understood that such a move would have created
a blood bath between sunnis and shiites and---also killed lots of KURDS.
I was a softie back then and absolutely did not want that to happen

Kuwait wouln't foregive the OPEC quota debt. KSA did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

I believe I learned in third grade, maybe it was kindergarten, that if someone is not ‘telling the truth” it means they are lying.

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

What was misrepresented?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

at you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.

Do you actually believe the myth that struth repeated is true. That actual WMD was found? Bush and Cheney don’t repeat that myth.

 

[Correll]

THat I did not find the un credible, does not mean that I did not find the bush administration credible.

Of course you found Bush credible. He was the leader of your tribe at the time.

What is incredible is your inability to read. I didn’t say you found Bush not to be credible when he flat out lied to you.

Here is what I wrote;

“If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.”

If you actually believed that you, with your limited tribal brain, could not find the UNSC inspectors to be credible, then you need to realize that you should never have supported the war based on what Bush was telling you. There were too many facts available for six out of ten Americans to realize, if not instinctively, that the wisest move before starting a war wouid be let the inspectors finish checking out the WMD situation in IRAQ and only go in with UN backing. Just like Biden said needed to be done.

You don't seem to be grasping much of what I am saying. And your questions are generally missing the point, or mischaracterizing shit and peppered with partisan filler.

IMO, the motive of the UN inspectors was PEACE AT ANY COST, which made their statements not credible. They have motive to lie.


Bush on the other hand, his motive was to advance the National Security Interests of the United States, by winning the war on terror. He did NOT have motive to lie, thus he was more credible.

 

[Correll]

If you actually believe that you similarly could not have known that the Bush regime was credible.

Why did you misrepresent what I said?

I believe I learned in third grade, maybe it was kindergarten, that if someone is not ‘telling the truth” it means they are lying.

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

What was misrepresented?

Doesn't matter. THe point is that you are citing the fact that something was said, as PROOF THAT THAT MAKES IT A FACT.


That is literally insane of you.

 

[Correll]

at you feel the need to characterize our differing opinions as "myths" is you being an asshole.

Do you actually believe the myth that struth repeated is true. That actual WMD was found? Bush and Cheney don’t repeat that myth.

I know that there was some stuff found that could technically (or legally) be considered to fit that description, depending on which definitions you used, such as old chem artillery shells or....I don't really recall. But I do believe that some such stuff was found.

That is not how I roll.

IMO, the WMDs, ie large stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons materials, were NOT found in anything like the manner or scale that we expected.


Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it, I do not think less of him because of our disagreement and I would be happy to civilly discuss the matter with him, over a beer, if there were not more pressing matters to discuss, which there almost certainly would be.


Note how I can disgree with him, without having to pepper my post explaining that disagreement, with personal digs at him, nor getting emotional about some shit to try to gin up ire at him, or any number of the dozens ways you have been an asshole in this thread.


That is because I am a nice person and intellectually mature enough to understand that other people can reasonable disagree with me.


YOU, are such a closed minded zealot, that you cannot accept that other people can disagree with you. ANd when faced with it, feel compelled to attack them and obsessively argue about it, even decades later.


You could really learn from me.


Ok, that was a lie. I know that you are not capable of learning.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,

That is exactly why you’re in a cult. The full blown cult that has now become the republican party with more than half iengulfed in Trumpism and now propagating the biggest political lie ever in American history. That Trump won the election.

You only have genuine respect for the opinions of your fellow cult members. You no longer have a requirement that their opinions need to be based in fact, specifically when life and death matters such as starting a preemptive war were at stake.

To have a cult, the republican party, the critical importance facts must lose relevance or it loses members. And as the majority white Party in America it can no longer afford to lose another single white oriented member or voter.

There are times when you must respect “only“ the facts and condemn erroneous and false opinions that can do harm.

this is one of them and you are failing miserably.

struth is a liar when he repeats the lie that the WMDs were found and therefore the Iraq war was justified. He is a liar. You have no self respect when you say that you respect a liar.

 

[Correll]

Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,

That is exactly why you’re in a cult. The full blown cult that has now become the republican party with more than half iengulfed in Trumpism and now propagating the biggest political lie ever in American history. That Trump won the election.

You only have genuine respect for the opinions of of your fellow cult members. You no longer have a requirement that their opinions need to be based in fact, specifically when life and death matters such as starting a preemptive war all right stake.

To have a cult, the republican party, the critical importance facts must lose relevance or you lose members.

There are times when you must respect “only“ the facts and condemn erroneous and false opinions that can do harm.

this is one of them and you are failing miserably.

struth is a liar when he repeats the lie that the WMDs were found and therefore the Iraq war was justified. He is a liar. You have no self respect when you say that you respect a liar.

Except I clearly explained WHY I respect his opinion (in the vast majority of my post that you cut and did not address)


AND, I would and have been happy to disagree respectfully with people that oppose me on political matters.


AND, I understand that people can disagree with me. And I understand that even if I disagree with their stated reasons, that does not mean that their stated reasons are not their reasons.


NOR, does it mean that if I... "prove" to my satisfaction that their stated reasons are wrong, that that means that their stated reasons are now NOT their stated reasons.


Are you getting any of this?

 

[struth]

Thus, me and struth have different opinions on the matter. I respect his position and his right to have it,

That is exactly why you’re in a cult. The full blown cult that has now become the republican party with more than half iengulfed in Trumpism and now propagating the biggest political lie ever in American history. That Trump won the election.

You only have genuine respect for the opinions of your fellow cult members. You no longer have a requirement that their opinions need to be based in fact, specifically when life and death matters such as starting a preemptive war were at stake.

To have a cult, the republican party, the critical importance facts must lose relevance or it loses members. And as the majority white Party in America it can no longer afford to lose another single white oriented member or voter.

There are times when you must respect “only“ the facts and condemn erroneous and false opinions that can do harm.

this is one of them and you are failing miserably.

struth is a liar when he repeats the lie that the WMDs were found and therefore the Iraq war was justified. He is a liar. You have no self respect when you say that you respect a liar.

odd...people are in a cult if they respect other people, and their different opinions

that’s something i haven’t heard before